EVE Search - The Null Deal: A Statement from Sovereign Nullsec

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Null Deal: A Statement from Sovereign Nullsec

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 298	Posted - 2014.09.29 16:22:00 - [1] - Quote Retar Aveymone wrote: can you even lay out a coherent explanation of what game changes you'd want to give you what you want? no? then why should we care what you want, you want ponies and rainbows and whatever but without any roadmap you're just uselessly whining This is the problem I'm seeing with the "anti occupancy based sov" camp. The aren't any real better ideas and for some it seems like the bar of success is "CFC and N3 must collapse instantly after change". If they're adding more NPC null space a good look should be given at its livability. Another region like the Great Wildlands will do little good for the majority of players.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 298	Posted - 2014.09.29 16:31:00 - [2] - Quote baltec1 wrote: X Gallentius wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses. So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee? Because if/when they become worth using they can only support 10 at a time. We have tens of thousands of pilots. Baltec gives us the simplest explanation of why this works. Doing logistics positively sucks. If the null blocs can realistically shrink their footprints they will. Does anyone really think playing "ship fuel blocks online" is any fun? Shrinking is hard when a system can't support a large # of people in a realistic faction. By realistic I mean, as good as running Incursions in hi sec because we're in null and we're supposed to get reward for the risk. The risk will be increased if the local list is so long you can't easily tell if neuts come in system.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 298	Posted - 2014.09.29 16:52:00 - [3] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Pointing out that things won't work the way people predict doesn't mean we have something better in mind. I don't, i have no clue as to how to achieve the goals people say they want achieved. And that's the difference. I KNOW I don't know, but just like Dominion, so many people are SURE they know what the right answer is. Them KNOWING for sure what the answer is is a good indicator that they are wrong lol. I will say this though. Rather than trying for a certain result ('coalitions break up' , 'more fighting' , 'small groups have a chance' etc). I think CCP should always just work to provide us TOOLS with which we can figure things out for ourselves. Like tools that make some sub caps super dangerous to supers (like the 'Strategic Weapon' Tech3s were supposed to have but never got, or the big bombs black ops were talked about having). If CCP waits until its 100% sure of a result they simply won't ever change anything. If you don't design mechanics with a goal in mind you're going to end up with a mess of rules that accomplish nothing vs. rules that at least encourage large empires like the CFC to contract. You can't force the null contraction, but you certainly can make it painful not to.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 298	Posted - 2014.09.29 17:40:00 - [4] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: No one is suggesting waiting till you're 100%, nothing would ever be done. This agreement (if implemented in game) could end up making things WORSE. It could turn the Blue Donut into a Purple Croissant, then we're screwed because those things are French (lol) . That's all I'm saying. What is called for is new thinking. "Occupancy SOV" and "npc constellations in every region" isn't new thinking, it's a rehash of pre-Dominion ideas. This is a risk but one that can be mitigated. CCP has to move at some point and right now there aren't any other realistic proposals on the table to consider. At some point, you have to go with the idea you have. We wait much longer for a "jesus null sec sov feature" there may not be many players left in null to care. New thinking is great but we've had years as you've pointed out.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 298	Posted - 2014.09.29 17:46:00 - [5] - Quote Retar Aveymone wrote: it is the considered opinion of the experts on the subject that there is nothing worse: 0.0 is at a point of terminal stasis and even bad changes, that would lead to a worse stasis point, are preferable in the near term to no changes at all because the period of stasis readjustment would at least be interesting and buy time THIS ^^ What I haven't been able to verbalize well because I'm at work IRL :)
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 298	Posted - 2014.09.29 18:08:00 - [6] - Quote Aiken Lugre wrote: I actually like the idea of somehow breaking the monopoly on moons the larger powers have. We all know that their money isn't from taxes, it's predominately from R64s (and to a lesser extent other moons). If we break the monopoly they hold on these moons we break the large powers significantly. Except this hasn't been true for some time and N3 and the CFC are making more profit off rent.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 298	Posted - 2014.09.29 19:49:00 - [7] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: No. You are asking them to make it unnecessary while upkeeping the same income. Instead of having to protect a dozen regions, the same people could rat the same amount of anoms just in Deklein. As a bonus: the high population density would allow ratters to use carriers/supers, as a cynojam would keep enemy capitals out and a small gang cannot break the spider tank of 50+ carriers. Not to mention that the nearest able enemy would be 5 regions away. This might seem like a strange question but isn't that what a high population alliance SHOULD be able to do? Defend its ratters/miners and utilize their space to make ISK? There is also a reward for playing well and being able to put 50 carriers into your general defense. The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 298	Posted - 2014.09.29 20:13:00 - [8] - Quote X Gallentius wrote: They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal? First breaking the ability to run rentals with one large alliance (Northern Associates, Greater Western Co Properperity Sphere, BOT) makes it much harder to run the logistics of the rental empire. Jump bridges, Cyno Beacons, Blue Standings, the logistics start adding up the more pieces that get added to the puzzle. Second they DO have to mind protecting their sov. If the CFC were to lose sov in rental systems, I guarantee renters nearby will start bailing. Third we DO know capitals are getting nerfed. Not knowing HOW is one of the elephants in the room making this conversation difficult. If jump drives get nerfed, the N3/CFC ability to run rentals on an occupancy based sov system gets iffy. No slowcat/boot blobs. Extortion threats become smaller if you're not next door. http://themittani.com/news/ccp-announces-force-projection-changes-more - to reference changes in force projection.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 298	Posted - 2014.09.30 13:49:00 - [9] - Quote So has the anti-occupancy based sov camp come up with a better alternate idea yet? Thats something missing from this thread.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 298	Posted - 2014.09.30 14:09:00 - [10] - Quote I guess thats my point. I can point to one side and say they have an idea for occupancy based sov that looks like it'll make room for others. I have nothing to point to from the other side. Not a name for an idea. Not an outline. Nothing. I've seen some reasonable concerns, but nothing that says sov based occupancy is a bad idea and worse than what we have now.

Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 299	Posted - 2014.09.30 16:56:00 - [11] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: Its funny how the only people kicking up a stink in their thread just happen to also be the grr goon mob.Yeah, it's pretty funny. I mean this proposal is a selfless one, CFC, PL, N3 all gave up their own interests to help the little guys. Yet only the CFC, PL, N3 posters support it, and all the "little guys" hate it. We are a very ungrateful bunch and don't deserve your kindness. Maybe you should teach us a lesson and withdraw your generous suggestion. As someone else not currently N3/CFC/PL and a "little guy" I'll also say I'm seeing a distinct lack of any better ideas from the non-occupancy based sov side.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 301	Posted - 2014.09.30 17:56:00 - [12] - Quote So from a "little guy" in support of the idea: 1) I love the idea of more NPC null. We're a little band of merry BLOPSers but hey its a living. As someone who does the logistics for these fleets and has a very good network of cyno alts staged around, its a giant PITA to get to some places in null. Yes I CAN get to Tenal and the upper left hand corner of Deklein on dotlan.... that doesn't make it practical. A little NPC space fixes this. 2) If all this accomplishes is that N3/PL/CFC can't rent the SW corner of the map in a practical fashion, we've made room for another big block at least. Thats progress and buys CCP some time to fix stuff to get MORE players in the game. Then we can look at making them some more room. 3) We don't know the mechanics of the force projection nerf or the mechanics of the sov system. The nerf to force projection may make it impractical to move your slowcat/boot fleet too far from home. Those sudden sov drops can suck after all...
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 301	Posted - 2014.09.30 19:33:00 - [13] - Quote Arsine Mayhem wrote: Goon are out in force in this thread. Goon propaganda. So you have absolutely nothing to say about any of the content I actually posted. Your only rebuttal is I'm a goon alt. Is there some kind of little achievement trophy in EVE for getting called that? I'm going to put this in a way I know you understand it. You are making SpaceMonkey's Alliance look very intelligent today.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 301	Posted - 2014.09.30 21:31:00 - [14] - Quote Arsine Mayhem wrote: Oh but you conveniently left this out of the quote: This http://eveeditorial.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-voices-have-spoken-but-to-what-end/ Bwaaahhhahahhaha We'll pick this apart piece by piece then. I put things from the article in Italics. This article doesn't refute anything and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The idea to put NPC null stations in every region gives large entities clone bay options to put their foot in whatever region they choose. The idea that the CFC and N3/PL can't already deploy close enough to any region they want now to use their capital fleet is simply asinine. Since we're not removing existing low sec/null sec deployment points, this is largely an unwarranted fear. A nerf to jump drive range won't stop them from deploying after this. The article also doesn't mention the possibility of a larger coalition getting a huge knife in the back if it deploys it's "APEX Force" to screw with a smaller entity. Remember the CFC has lost its space before. Sov has dropped suddenly before. This was PRECISELY the complaint when I was with Li3 and FA. FrFrmPukin and other CFC voices were very verbal in their objections to the fact that here we had guys launching fight after fight against us and there was no way we could totally push them out because they staged in NPC stations. This is the whole point and desirable. OMG we can't be 100% safe blergh hurr durr. Reread the note above and remember that the existing large null blocs can already deploy to hit anything they want. Every null sec entity should have to deal with randoms from null sec space. Larger forces such as Pandemic Legion will always have a motivation to helicopter-**** whomever they choose as long as thereGÇÖs a fight. If you force the lesser entities to fight and lose, youGÇÖll drive the lesser entities out. The other option? Batphone. ThereGÇÖs quite the possibility that going to this kind of sov mechanic will put more Batphones in more hands and build more alliances out of need rather than convenience. How does provi exist again? The game shouldn't reward competent diplomacy? Author is arguing against people forming groups more than the mechanics of this change. How does the author propose any group fight a larger one if its not "batphone". More batphones = more dead supers too. Overall, this GÇ£agreementGÇ¥ MUST be construed as reactionary since it was drafted AFTER the CSM Summit. What if what was presented at the summit was so bad nobody liked it? Is there any confirmation of what DID occur at the CSM summit? Or is this conjecture because the author doesn't like who the idea comes from?
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 302	Posted - 2014.10.01 13:28:00 - [15] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You do realise that we are not blue with half of nullsec right? You know, this thread might not get any CCP response in it but at least they can see the poor arguments people are trying to use to keep the status quo. On that note lets summarize the arguments against: 1) Its all a giant plot by N3/PL and the CFC to get more null sec staging points so they can ROFLCoptor stomp any and all upstarts in the new sov system. 2) Its all a giant plot to condense PvE activities so null ratter become invincible slowcat/boot hordes with 50 man carrier fleets rallying to kill anyone who interrupts the ratting. 3) There won't be any fighting because the distance between entities will be too large and the small entities won't do anything to the larger ones and nobody else will be fighting anyone. 4) This won't fix anything because the CFC and N3/PL still exist 5) Why change the mechanics? People should change the way they play the game.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 302	Posted - 2014.10.01 13:33:00 - [16] - Quote Regatto wrote: No...? Only like 12 regions? :D while in another half you can't even use caps because of that deal with PL to keep your supers/caps safe? Just to be sure... That has absolutely no bearing on how ridiculous most of the arguments against the proposed changes to the sov system are.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.